less minor install issue

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
13 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

less minor install issue

Daniel Malament-2
There used to be a message before the install script wiped out
filesystems with newfs, listing the partitions and asking if you were
sure.  Was this removed, or did I somehow miss something?  And WHY???

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

Theo de Raadt
> There used to be a message before the install script wiped out
> filesystems with newfs, listing the partitions and asking if you were
> sure.  Was this removed, or did I somehow miss something?  And WHY???

Because it is the install script.

What did you think it was going to do.

It's installing.  It's job is to wipe disks.  There is no need for
stupid questions.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

Daniel Malament-2
On 10/22/2009 2:41 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:

>> There used to be a message before the install script wiped out
>> filesystems with newfs, listing the partitions and asking if you were
>> sure.  Was this removed, or did I somehow miss something?  And WHY???
>
> Because it is the install script.
>
> What did you think it was going to do.
>
> It's installing.  It's job is to wipe disks.  There is no need for
> stupid questions.

Ah, the sarcasm I was expecting.  And here I thought I remembered the
new installer being described as easier to use.  (Or did I make that
last part up?  Seems the same from a user perspective, just in a
different order.  Not that I had a problem with the ease of use either
way, other than this.)

In fact, there was a particular reason for my question.  I had the vague
impression, probably erroneous, I suppose, that it was possible to get
the old install script to only newfs those systems for which you
specified a mount point.  I was attempting to check that in the
anticipation that the script was actually going to tell me what it was
going to do.  Granted, I probably should have tested it in a more
careful way, but at least the only real damage was to cause a certain
amount of aggravation.

So assuming that the install script can't do what I was expecting, is
there some other way to do a fresh install to only one/some partitions
on a drive, or are the choices only a) blow the whole drive away b)
install to a clean disk or c) do an upgrade?

P.S. I look forward to experiencing the usual wonderful work of the
OpenBSD team once I finish cleaning up this mess...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

Jan Stary
On Oct 22 03:34:45, Daniel Malament wrote:
> In fact, there was a particular reason for my question.  I had the vague  
> impression, probably erroneous, I suppose, that it was possible to get  
> the old install script to only newfs those systems for which you  
> specified a mount point.

Which is exactly what happens with the new install script, too.
Also, FAQ 4.5.1 says

        Install: load OpenBSD onto the system, overwriting whatever may
        have been there. Note that it is possible to leave some
        partitions untouched in this process, such as a /home, but
        otherwise, assume everything else is overwritten.

> So assuming that the install script can't do what I was expecting, is  
> there some other way to do a fresh install to only one/some partitions  
> on a drive, or are the choices only a) blow the whole drive away b)  
> install to a clean disk or c) do an upgrade?

Just leave the partition without a mount point for it in disklabel.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

Daniel Malament-2
In reply to this post by Daniel Malament-2
On 10/22/2009 4:31 AM, Jan Stary wrote:
> On Oct 22 03:34:45, Daniel Malament wrote:
>> In fact, there was a particular reason for my question.  I had the vague  
>> impression, probably erroneous, I suppose, that it was possible to get  
>> the old install script to only newfs those systems for which you  
>> specified a mount point.
>
> Which is exactly what happens with the new install script, too.

Hm.  I think I may have tried things the wrong way first.  (Which like I
said, I would have expected to notice _before_ it was too late.)  Glad
to know I didn't make that bit up, though. :)

> Also, FAQ 4.5.1 says
>
> Install: load OpenBSD onto the system, overwriting whatever may
> have been there. Note that it is possible to leave some
> partitions untouched in this process, such as a /home, but
> otherwise, assume everything else is overwritten.

I missed that, but regardless, I'm not seeing anything about how to do
that in the FAQ...

>> So assuming that the install script can't do what I was expecting, is  
>> there some other way to do a fresh install to only one/some partitions  
>> on a drive, or are the choices only a) blow the whole drive away b)  
>> install to a clean disk or c) do an upgrade?
>
> Just leave the partition without a mount point for it in disklabel.

Thanks.  I think I may test this out a bit more thoroughly on a spare
drive next time before risking further aggravation, though...

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

William Boshuck
In reply to this post by Daniel Malament-2
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:34:45AM -0400, Daniel Malament wrote:

> On 10/22/2009 2:41 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >>There used to be a message before the install script wiped out
> >>filesystems with newfs, listing the partitions and asking if you were
> >>sure.  Was this removed, or did I somehow miss something?  And WHY???
> >
> >Because it is the install script.
> >
> >What did you think it was going to do.
> >
> >It's installing.  It's job is to wipe disks.  There is no need for
> >stupid questions.
>
> Ah, the sarcasm I was expecting.  And here I thought I remembered the
> new installer being described as easier to use.

It is.  Were it not so quick it would be positively
boring. Just don't set mount points for the partitions
you don't want touched.  If you are worried, dump said
partitions in the unlikely event (e.g., you mess up)
that you need to restore them (something you should do
in any case).

-wb

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

Daniel Malament-2
On 10/22/2009 5:37 AM, William Boshuck wrote:
>> And here I thought I remembered the new installer being described as easier to use.

> It is.  Were it not so quick it would be positively
> boring. Just don't set mount points for the partitions

Perhaps I should clarify: IMO, not double-checking with the user about
what specifically to wipe, especially when it used to, is a step back in
'usability' (in the Jakob Nielsen sense) - or to put it another way,
user-friendliness.  (I know, not particularly an OBSD-prized value).
While I don't have difficulty with using the installer to (ahem)
install, I also don't necessarily think 'easy to use' has to be
synonymous with 'easy to shoot yourself in the foot with'.  Even an
explicit message about not setting mount points for partitions that
shouldn't be erased would be useful.  Actually, s/Even an/Also, an/.

But thanks for the tip.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

Kenneth R Westerback
In reply to this post by Daniel Malament-2
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 03:34:45AM -0400, Daniel Malament wrote:

> On 10/22/2009 2:41 AM, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> >>There used to be a message before the install script wiped out
> >>filesystems with newfs, listing the partitions and asking if you
> >>were sure.  Was this removed, or did I somehow miss something?
> >>And WHY???
> >
> >Because it is the install script.
> >
> >What did you think it was going to do.
> >
> >It's installing.  It's job is to wipe disks.  There is no need for
> >stupid questions.
>
> Ah, the sarcasm I was expecting.  And here I thought I remembered
> the new installer being described as easier to use.  (Or did I make
> that last part up?  Seems the same from a user perspective, just in
> a different order.  Not that I had a problem with the ease of use
> either way, other than this.)
>
> In fact, there was a particular reason for my question.  I had the
> vague impression, probably erroneous, I suppose, that it was
> possible to get the old install script to only newfs those systems
> for which you specified a mount point.  I was attempting to check
> that in the anticipation that the script was actually going to tell
> me what it was going to do.  Granted, I probably should have tested
> it in a more careful way, but at least the only real damage was to
> cause a certain amount of aggravation.
>
> So assuming that the install script can't do what I was expecting,
> is there some other way to do a fresh install to only one/some
> partitions on a drive, or are the choices only a) blow the whole
> drive away b) install to a clean disk or c) do an upgrade?
>
> P.S. I look forward to experiencing the usual wonderful work of the
> OpenBSD team once I finish cleaning up this mess...

The same mechanism to avoid newfs'ing a filesystem is in the new
install script. i.e. use (C)ustom disk configuration and do not
specify a mount point for the partition(s) you do not want newfs'ed.

Asking the question was superfluous since it made no sense if you
chose 'auto' and if you chose 'custom' you were taking full control
yourself.

i.e. at the prompt

Use (A)uto layout, (E)dit auto layout, or create (C)ustom layout? [a]

just choose (C)ustom and away you go.

.... Ken

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

Nick Holland
In reply to this post by Daniel Malament-2
Daniel Malament wrote:

> On 10/22/2009 5:37 AM, William Boshuck wrote:
>>> And here I thought I remembered the new installer being described as easier to use.
>
>> It is.  Were it not so quick it would be positively
>> boring. Just don't set mount points for the partitions
>
> Perhaps I should clarify: IMO, not double-checking with the user about
> what specifically to wipe, especially when it used to, is a step back in
> 'usability' (in the Jakob Nielsen sense) - or to put it another way,
> user-friendliness.

I presume you are talking about this question:

  The next step *DESTROYS* all existing data on these partitions!
  Are you really sure that you're ready to proceed? [no] y

This question was asked AFTER you had fdisk'd and disklabled your
disk.  By this point, the data had been already potentially destroyed,
I thought this question quite silly, in that it implies data has been
safe up to this point...no, it hasn't, you have potentially been
destroying things all over the place.

Nick.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

patrick keshishian
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nick Holland
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> Daniel Malament wrote:
>> On 10/22/2009 5:37 AM, William Boshuck wrote:
>>>> And here I thought I remembered the new installer being described as
easier to use.

>>
>>> It is.  Were it not so quick it would be positively
>>> boring. Just don't set mount points for the partitions
>>
>> Perhaps I should clarify: IMO, not double-checking with the user about
>> what specifically to wipe, especially when it used to, is a step back in
>> 'usability' (in the Jakob Nielsen sense) - or to put it another way,
>> user-friendliness.
>
> I presume you are talking about this question:
>
>  The next step *DESTROYS* all existing data on these partitions!
>  Are you really sure that you're ready to proceed? [no] y
>
> This question was asked AFTER you had fdisk'd and disklabled your
> disk.  By this point, the data had been already potentially destroyed,
> I thought this question quite silly, in that it implies data has been
> safe up to this point...no, it hasn't, you have potentially been
> destroying things all over the place.

Hey Nick,

I don't wish to contradict you here, but ... I usually do installs and
never upgrades. So what I do is keep /home out of the mount points in
the disklabel stage, go through install, then re-add /home. I recall a
while back, I did get to this stage and agreed to proceed and as the
partitions were being newfs-ed I realized I had forgotten and included
/home in the list. I ^C out before the /home slice was reached. I
restarted the install, this time doing it "correctly", and my data in
/home was OK!

Might have been a fluke ... but, it is what it is.

--patrick

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

Theo de Raadt
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nick Holland
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Daniel Malament wrote:
> >> On 10/22/2009 5:37 AM, William Boshuck wrote:
> >>>> And here I thought I remembered the new installer being described as
> easier to use.
> >>
> >>> It is.  Were it not so quick it would be positively
> >>> boring. Just don't set mount points for the partitions
> >>
> >> Perhaps I should clarify: IMO, not double-checking with the user about
> >> what specifically to wipe, especially when it used to, is a step back in
> >> 'usability' (in the Jakob Nielsen sense) - or to put it another way,
> >> user-friendliness.
> >
> > I presume you are talking about this question:
> >
> >  The next step *DESTROYS* all existing data on these partitions!
> >  Are you really sure that you're ready to proceed? [no] y
> >
> > This question was asked AFTER you had fdisk'd and disklabled your
> > disk.  By this point, the data had been already potentially destroyed,
> > I thought this question quite silly, in that it implies data has been
> > safe up to this point...no, it hasn't, you have potentially been
> > destroying things all over the place.
>
> Hey Nick,
>
> I don't wish to contradict you here, but ... I usually do installs and
> never upgrades. So what I do is keep /home out of the mount points in
> the disklabel stage, go through install, then re-add /home. I recall a
> while back, I did get to this stage and agreed to proceed and as the
> partitions were being newfs-ed I realized I had forgotten and included
> /home in the list. I ^C out before the /home slice was reached. I
> restarted the install, this time doing it "correctly", and my data in
> /home was OK!
>
> Might have been a fluke ... but, it is what it is.

You missed the point.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

Kenneth R Westerback
In reply to this post by patrick keshishian
On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 06:15:25PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nick Holland
> <[hidden email]> wrote:
> > Daniel Malament wrote:
> >> On 10/22/2009 5:37 AM, William Boshuck wrote:
> >>>> And here I thought I remembered the new installer being described as
> easier to use.
> >>
> >>> It is.  Were it not so quick it would be positively
> >>> boring. Just don't set mount points for the partitions
> >>
> >> Perhaps I should clarify: IMO, not double-checking with the user about
> >> what specifically to wipe, especially when it used to, is a step back in
> >> 'usability' (in the Jakob Nielsen sense) - or to put it another way,
> >> user-friendliness.
> >
> > I presume you are talking about this question:
> >
> >  The next step *DESTROYS* all existing data on these partitions!
> >  Are you really sure that you're ready to proceed? [no] y
> >
> > This question was asked AFTER you had fdisk'd and disklabled your
> > disk.  By this point, the data had been already potentially destroyed,
> > I thought this question quite silly, in that it implies data has been
> > safe up to this point...no, it hasn't, you have potentially been
> > destroying things all over the place.
>
> Hey Nick,
>
> I don't wish to contradict you here, but ... I usually do installs and
> never upgrades. So what I do is keep /home out of the mount points in
> the disklabel stage, go through install, then re-add /home. I recall a
> while back, I did get to this stage and agreed to proceed and as the
> partitions were being newfs-ed I realized I had forgotten and included
> /home in the list. I ^C out before the /home slice was reached. I
> restarted the install, this time doing it "correctly", and my data in
> /home was OK!
>
> Might have been a fluke ... but, it is what it is.
>
> --patrick
>

Nick's point is that by the time the question came the disk setup
could have been completely changed - new MBR partitions, different
disklael layout of partitions.  So the script really had no idea
when it asked that question if your data was already gone. Thus it
was misleading, and thus it was eliminated in the great 4.6 rewrite.

.... Ken

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: less minor install issue

patrick keshishian
On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 5:13 AM, Kenneth R Westerback
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 06:15:25PM -0700, patrick keshishian wrote:
>> On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:41 PM, Nick Holland
>> <[hidden email]> wrote:
>> > Daniel Malament wrote:
>> >> On 10/22/2009 5:37 AM, William Boshuck wrote:
>> >>>> And here I thought I remembered the new installer being described as
>> easier to use.
>> >>
>> >>> It is.  Were it not so quick it would be positively
>> >>> boring. Just don't set mount points for the partitions
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps I should clarify: IMO, not double-checking with the user about
>> >> what specifically to wipe, especially when it used to, is a step back
in

>> >> 'usability' (in the Jakob Nielsen sense) - or to put it another way,
>> >> user-friendliness.
>> >
>> > I presume you are talking about this question:
>> >
>> >  The next step *DESTROYS* all existing data on these partitions!
>> >  Are you really sure that you're ready to proceed? [no] y
>> >
>> > This question was asked AFTER you had fdisk'd and disklabled your
>> > disk.  By this point, the data had been already potentially destroyed,
>> > I thought this question quite silly, in that it implies data has been
>> > safe up to this point...no, it hasn't, you have potentially been
>> > destroying things all over the place.
>>
>> Hey Nick,
>>
>> I don't wish to contradict you here, but ... I usually do installs and
>> never upgrades. So what I do is keep /home out of the mount points in
>> the disklabel stage, go through install, then re-add /home. I recall a
>> while back, I did get to this stage and agreed to proceed and as the
>> partitions were being newfs-ed I realized I had forgotten and included
>> /home in the list. I ^C out before the /home slice was reached. I
>> restarted the install, this time doing it "correctly", and my data in
>> /home was OK!
>>
>> Might have been a fluke ... but, it is what it is.
>>
>> --patrick
>>
>
> Nick's point is that by the time the question came the disk setup
> could have been completely changed - new MBR partitions, different
> disklael layout of partitions.  So the script really had no idea
> when it asked that question if your data was already gone. Thus it
> was misleading, and thus it was eliminated in the great 4.6 rewrite.

I don't want to belabor this, however, the actual data on the disk
(maybe with the exception of MBR) is still safe until newfs-ed.
Therefore, even if the disklabel was changed, if the user had a copy
of her pre-install dislabel she could revert/recover at this stage. I
know there has been suggestions many times over (by Nick Holland I
believe) that folks should save their disklabels for similar recovery
situations; in fact fairly recently someone reported such recovery on
misc@ IIRC.

Either way, point made. People who are used to keeping partitions from
install to install, should choose the "Custom layout" option as you
pointed out.

--patrick